Stefanie J. Lipson

Contact Stefanie

Most days, this blog is all about analyzing entertainment news stories.  Today, it’s just about analyzing an entertaining news story.

Forty-eight year old Florida billionaire John Goodman (owner of the International Polo Club Palm Beach, not Roseanne’s TV husband) recently shocked courts and bloggers alike with the headline-grabbing adoption of his 42-year-old girlfriend, Heather Hutchins, making Heather his eldest (and creepiest) of three children.  But if the fact of a 48-year-old man adopting his adult girlfriend as his daughter doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies, here’s betting the reason he did so will.

Goodman is currently facing both criminal DUI manslaughter charges and a wrongful death civil action for causing the death of 23-year-old Scott Wilson, who drowned when his car overturned and plunged into a canal after being struck by Goodman’s Bentley in February 2010.  (Of course he was driving a Bentley.)  Goodman could forfeit a significant portion of his net worth should the jury find against him and award punitive damages in the wrongful death case.  But even if Wilson’s family wins a massive judgment against Goodman, they can’t take from what he doesn’t own — and “what he doesn’t own,” says Florida Circuit Judge Glenn Kelley (who is presiding over the wrongful death suit against Goodman), includes a $100-million irrevocable trust, created all the way back in 1991, for the benefit of Goodman’s “children.”

Observers have speculated that Goodman — knowing that his money may soon become the Wilsons’ money once their lawsuit is finished — adopted Hutchins as a way to indirectly access a fortune which the Wilsons cannot.  In other words, Goodman’s maneuver seemingly isn’t so much about making Hutchins a wealthy woman as it is about keeping himself a wealthy man.  The head-spinning development caused even Judge Kelley to observe that the court was entering a “legal twilight zone.”  So what is really going on here? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

Unless you live here, I’m assuming you’re aware of a little football game taking place this weekend between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots.  (Hey, wait a minute, that sounds awfully familiar…)

I’m as excited as anyone for the game, which is why, this Sunday, I might try to find a local bar hosting a Super Bowl party. But I’ll probably be out of luck, unless I’m willing to go to a “Big Game” party instead. And if I’m feeling spendthrift — the always-confusing word that sounds like “thrifty” but actually means “profligate” — I might try to pick up a new flat-screen TV at a Super Bowl sale. But unless I’m willing to settle for one of those ubiquitous “Big Game” sales, I’ll probably be forced to stick with what I’ve got.

Every year, while every sports yak in America is obsessing over Super Bowl scouting reports, every business in America is trying to capitalize on the game. But most of them aren’t using the words “Super Bowl” to do so, and the reason is fairly obvious: the phrase “Super Bowl” is trademarked by the NFL, which is famously protective of its intellectual property. Moreover, the privilege of using the phrase “Super Bowl” in advertising is one of the valuable rights bestowed by the NFL upon its advertisers and promotional partners — which gives the NFL extra incentive to keep freeloaders from poaching the phrase (thereby diminishing its value to potential paying promotional partners).

But what if the NFL is wrong? What if I really could check out the Super Bowl party at my favorite watering hole without them being subjected to the threat of legal doom?

Guess what, kiddies: I can. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q:  I will be directing a small feature financed by private investors.  It’s based on my script.  I want to ask for final cut, but I know only big time directors get final cut.  Anyway, I wonder if it’s something I can ask for and how final cut works.

A:  In many ways, a director without final cut is like a painter who has no right to determine what his painting looks like.  Of course, in many ways, it’s not like that — a director needs a lot of other people’s money to make a film, and a painter doesn’t.  If a studio invests tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into a picture, it only makes sense that it wants to control final cut.  That’s why only well-established directors are able to negotiate final cut on studio films.

The situation is different on small films not financed with studio money.  On those films, almost everything is negotiable, including final cut.  So you should feel free to ask for it, especially since it’s based on your script.  After all, depending on the level of creative experience of the investors and producers involved with your film, you may be the person everyone actually prefers to have final cut.  Is it really better if some guy who made a small fortune in the car wash business and who decides to “invest” some of it in a small film has final cut?

So here is how final cut generally works. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

If you read the paper, watch TV, listen to the radio or use the Internet, it’s been tough to avoid SOPA recently.  (If you don’t, well, you’re probably hand-writing angry missives in a cabin and not reading this.)  What we’ve seen thus far are two widely-popular, well-funded industries passionately going toe-to-toe with one another, with one widely-unpopular but well funded group of politicians playing referee.  After some low blows, eye gouging and hair pulling, the anti-SOPA team has prevailed, at least temporarily.

Unfortunately, after listening to both sides of the debate, I’m convinced the vast majority of the debaters and their audience lacked a strong understanding of exactly what SOPA says and what its true implications would be.  Because we’re dealing with powerful industries with enormous soap boxes, the majority of the “discussions” presented to the public have been severely slanted by the presenter’s personal stake in the contest.  As with most heated political topics, this is great for sound-bites and overbroad, black-and-white ways of looking at things, but not so great if you actually want to understand the proposed legislation.  So as any good humanitarian should do, I’m going to attempt to sum it up from a relatively-neutral legal perspective.  Even if SOPA itself is no longer on the table (for now), the fight it started can give us insight into the sides’ respective concerns and the future skirmishes we’re likely to see. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Elisabeth Moriarty

Contact Elisabeth

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., last Monday my husband and I found ourselves with three glorious hours to kill midday, while our daughter visited a friend.  We could have cleaned out the garage, but instead we went to lunch at a new-ish bar and grill which prides itself on serving over 100 beers on tap.  As I perused the vast beer menu, I was struck by the creativity (and in some cases absurdity) of the names these breweries had invented for their ambers and ales.  There were a few that were a bit embarrassing (“Flying Dog Doggie Style Pale Ale?”  Seriously, I don’t think I can’t ask for that without blushing, so it better be good).  Some made me laugh out loud (I thought “Unibroue Ephemere Cassis” was hysterically punny, until I learned that “Unibroue” is the actual name of the Quebec-based brewery).  Few names were conventional and many were downright clever.

I knew vaguely about the ancient and globe-spanning trademark dispute between American brewer Anheuser-Busch and the Czech beer producer Budejovicky Budvar over the right to use the trademarked name “Budweiser” — a battle which has been brewing since 1870.  But with so many beers and so many creative names and logos, I wondered, as even slightly tipsy lawyers tend to do, how often breweries found themselves in a legal kerfuffle over their beloved (and lucrative) alcoholic beverages.  Aren’t these guys supposed to be mellow and laid back (well, except, perhaps, for the guys who make Arrogant Bastard Ale)?  They make beer, for Pete’s sake.

Well, it turns out that brewers stir up litigation more often than you might think. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q:  I’ve been negotiating an option on a book for a few weeks and we’re about to the point where we’re going to sign the paperwork.  The book is a pretty standard detective novel.  The other day the author happened to mention that he had already sold one of his books to a studio.  It turns out that the book he already sold shares the main character (the detective) with the book I’m interested in.  If the plots are completely different between the two books, does this even matter?

A:  Unfortunately, it likely does matter.  Generally, when a studio or producer acquires “movie” rights to a book, it acquires “character” rights.  In other words, in your case, the author likely granted to the studio, among other things, the exclusive right to make movies containing the characters in that book.  Therefore, you may infringe upon the studio’s rights if you make a movie based on the book you’re optioning, because it will contain the character the studio already exclusively “owns.” Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

•